So uh, it appears the US constitution's official version on constitution.congress.gov has whole sections removed from it: https://slrpnk.net/post/25696399
Amongst others being the removal of the section saying "habeas corpus shall not be suspended"
Post
Replies:
0
@cwebber Whoa, Section 9 was like the most important part. It's pretty much a summary of the Magna Carta. It's one of the main parts of it that I very explicitly remember being taught and emphasized in grade school (around the time of the US Bicentennial, when Carter was President).
@cwebber Yes this is missing Sections 9 and 10 of Article 1. So, also missing:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
@cwebber Surely is must be a formatting bug, surely they wouldn't be so brazen as to just delete section 1 articles 9 and 10.... but its even removed from the annotated version
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/
for reference: here's the wayback machine's version from January.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250118140540/https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1
So uh... Guess we're headed to Orwell, not Huxley. Fuck.
@cwebber Like, even the explanation & history pages are gone!
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C2-1/ALDE_00001087/
wayback from January:
@cwebber At our local No Kings day protest, someone was handing out paper copies of the Constitution, and to think I almost turned it down, because “it’s on the internet”
@cwebber verified, writing congressperson.
@cwebber Might explain the dismissal of the librarian of congress a few months ago. Trump appointed one of his lawyers to the position, which he can't actually do without congressional approval, but did anyway. Kind of like how they can't actually just edit the constitution
@cwebber is trump going after the Constitution with a sharpie now?
@cwebber It looks as if they also got rid of (their copy of) the clause authorizing Congress to fund the Navy.
@cwebber I went directly to Congress’s website and yup. They cut a big chunk out of it! WTF!?!?
uspol, severely alarming
@cwebber
This is stupid as hell because an original physical copy of The US Constitution is on permanent public display at the National Archives for free admission. And as far as I know none of that has changed. So there's nothing stopping me from heading downtown and pointing my finger at it.
This is stupid as hell because an original physical copy of The US Constitution is on permanent public display at the National Archives for free admission. And as far as I know none of that has changed. So there's nothing stopping me from heading downtown and pointing my finger at it.
Here's the Archive's website on it: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
@cwebber
I'm hoping in vain this is a mistake, but given TX R's attempt to gerrymander the next nat'l election, and the response from several Blue states saying they'll do the same in response... the timing is a bit odd.
@cwebber
That's such a weird thing to do. It's not like that's the only copy. 🤨
That's such a weird thing to do. It's not like that's the only copy. 🤨
@TerryHancock
This is what I'm saying! One of the most reproduced documents in the country. I have my own copy. What do they think they are trying to pull?
I haven't seen any major news articles about this, but you can see for yourself. Journalists where you at, who's gonna write the first piece
Here's a news article covering it, thx @billseitzhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/did-congress-official-constitution-site-just-delete-references-to-parts-of-article-1/ar-AA1K0QFb
BTW why put the "question" thing up there, just answer the question, yes it was
@cwebber @billseitz usually questions asked in article title tend to have "no" as an answer also
not a solid enough approach
or are they expecting emotional engagement ? 🤷
not a solid enough approach
or are they expecting emotional engagement ? 🤷
@cwebber yeah, i posted about this last night:
